Theology and Christian Apologetics Archives | CrossExamined.org

Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation? An Analysis of the Warning Passages in Hebrews

A significant point of contention in regard to the book of Hebrews is whether a genuine believer can lose their salvation, or whether falling away from the faith merely evidences the fact that one had never truly come to share in Christ. At the center of this controversy are the warning passages, which are found in Hebrews 2:1-4, 3:7-4:13, 5:11-6:12, 10:19-39, and 12:14-29. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the Biblical evidence on whether a professing Christian who walks away from the faith forfeits their salvation, with a particular focus on the book of Hebrews.

A fundamental principle of Biblical hermeneutics is that the unclear passages should always be interpreted in light of clearer texts. This follows from the premise that the Biblical texts, being divinely inspired, though composed by different authors, are a unit. That is to say, they are internally consistent in all that they teach. When interpreting difficult and hotly debated texts in the book of Hebrews, therefore, we must ask ourselves first what the rest of the Scriptures teach about this topic. Ideally, we would particularly want to analyse any other books by the same author to provide illumination on his probable intended meaning in the book in which we are interested. Unfortunately, the authorship of Hebrews is widely debated among New Testament scholars and no clear consensus has been reached. However, irrespective of the actual author(s), the text does show evidence of reflecting Pauline thought, and was very likely composed by an associate of Paul, if not by Paul himself [1]. An examination of the Pauline corpus, therefore, can give us some insight into the broader theology of the author of Hebrews. We must then examine the book of Hebrews itself to determine whether other texts, beside the warning passages under investigation, provide illumination on the question before us. Finally, it is incumbent upon us to analyse the context of each of the five warning passages, and how they fit into the general argumentative flow of the book of Hebrews.

A Brief Survey of the New Testament as a Whole

Much could be written on what the New Testament has to say about eternal security. However, since the focus of this paper is the book of Hebrews, I will keep my comments brief. Various statements in the gospels seem to indicate strongly that one cannot lose one’s salvation. For example, Jesus stated that “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out…And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day,” (John 6:37-40). Thomas R. Schreiner observes that “the parallelism establishes that comes and believes are synonyms. Thus, to say that those given by the Father ‘will come’ to the Son also means that they ‘will believe’ in the Son.”[2] Jesus further stated that “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day,” (John 6:44). The two references to “him” in this verse clearly allude to the same individual, namely, he who was drawn. The implication is that the one who is drawn will ultimately be raised up on the last day. Jesus later goes on to say, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand,” (John 10:27-29). In Greek, the phrase denoting “they will never perish” is οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. The expression οὐ μὴ is a double negative, used in Greek for emphasis. It hence may be best translated “they will never ever perish.” Again, this supports the doctrine of eternal security.

One possible counter example that may be given to these texts in the gospels is the falling away of Judas, one of the Twelve. However, John 6:64-65 suggests that Judas was not a genuine believer even prior to his betrayal of Jesus: “‘But there are some of you who do not believe.’ (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, ‘This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.’” The use of the expression “Διὰ τοῦτο…” (“This is why…”) links verse 65 with verse 64, indicating that the reason Jesus foreknew who would forsake the faith is because he knew before time to whom the ability to come to Jesus had been granted by the Father. The foot washing episode at the last supper adds further support to the idea that Judas was not in fact a believer prior to the betrayal: “‘And you are clean, but not every one of you.’ For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean,” (John 13:10).

Multiple texts outside of the gospels also support the doctrine of eternal security. In 1 John 2:19, the apostle John also speaks of false prophets, saying, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” This is consistent with the view that falling away is not a forfeiting of one’s salvation but rather an evidence that one has never truly walked with Christ. The only viable alternative interpretation of this text is to read it as saying that they “went out from us because they were no longer of us.”[3] However, this is special pleading, since the Greek word οὐκέτι (“no longer”) is completely absent from this passage.

Peter indicates that believers “by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time,” (1 Peter 1:5). The phrase “being guarded” (φρουρουμένους) expresses the concept that the inheritance of a believer is preserved by God. 2 Peter, however, also contains a warning passage against falling away that is not unlike those found in Hebrews (2 Peter 2:20-22): “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: ‘The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.’” Peter, then, seems to uphold both that salvation is conditional upon remaining in the faith and that those who are saved will persevere to the end.

What about the Pauline corpus? Does it provide any additional support for eternal security? One helpful text here is Paul’s statement to the Christians in Philippi that “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ,” (Philippians 1:6). Similarly, Paul tells the Corinthian Christians that Christ “will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1 Corinthians 1:8, cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24). These affirmations would seem to point in the direction of perseverance in the faith being accomplished by God Himself. Paul also writes to the Romans that “those whom [God] foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified,” (Romans 8:29-30). This text sets up an unbroken chain of redemption from God’s active foreknowledge to the calling of the believer, to their justification and ultimate glorification. In other words, everyone who is called and justified by God will certainly be glorified.

Of interest to the present study, however, there are also warning passages to be found in the Pauline corpus. For example, Paul writes “And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister,” (Colossians 1:21-23). Paul also writes, “For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness,” (1 Corinthians 10:1-5). The affirmation of eternal security, together with an affirmation that salvation is conditional upon perseverance, is something also found in Hebrews, as we shall see. Paul, however, holds those two apparently conflicting ideas together. He writes of the gospel “by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you – unless you believed in vain,” (1 Corinthians 15:2). In other words, while salvation is indeed conditional upon perseverance in the faith, a true believer will not fail to persevere. Of course, this raises a question about the purpose of the warning passages in Hebrews and the rest of the New Testament: Why does one need to be warned if there is no danger of falling away? I shall return to this question later in this paper.

An Analysis of Clear Texts in the Book of Hebrews

Having briefly surveyed Biblical books outside of the epistle to the Hebrews, we must turn our attention to analyse any clear texts within Hebrews itself that might provide illumination as to relevant beliefs the author holds relating to the subject. Indeed, while the unity of Scripture is a justified working assumption that falls out of the doctrine of inspiration, we must be open to the possibility of this methodological presupposition being falsified.

The author of Hebrews tells us that a necessary consequence of coming to share in Christ is holding “our original confidence firm to the end,” (Hebrews 3:14). The implication here is that if one does not persevere in the faith then that individual has not come to share in Christ – confirming the numerous statements in other New Testament literature and thereby supporting our working assumption of Scriptural unity. Indeed, “Careful attention to the wording shows that these lines do not cite what will be true if they hold on, but what is already true of them, if in fact they endure. Their endurance through temptation will be the evidence of their vital connection to Christ. The writer asserts that their continuance in faith will demonstrate that they are members of God’s household, not that it will make it so in the future. Holding on to their confidence will reveal the reality they already have come to share in Christ, not what they will share. By continuing in faith, they demonstrate the work Christ has already begun and will certainly accomplish in them.” [4]

Another relevant text in Hebrews is the author’s statement that “[Christ] is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them,” (Hebrews 7:25). This presents a theological conundrum for the view that salvation may be forfeited by falling away, since if Christ is standing making intercession on behalf of those who are His and yet they are falling away, the conclusion seems inescapable that the intercession and prayers of the Son are being rejected by the Father, thereby implying a dissension within the godhead.

Any attempt to understand the soteriology of the book of Hebrews, therefore, must make sense of both the statements given above and the warning passages. It is to these warning passages that I now turn.

Are the Warning Passages Addressing Genuine Believers?

The first question we must address is whether the warning passages are addressed to genuine believers and speak of a falling away of someone who truly believed. Perhaps the most famous of the warning passages is that found in Hebrews 5:11-6:12. Verses 4-6 state that “it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.” The contextual background of this text seems to be that the audience to whom the author was writing were failing to make spiritual progress and were in a state of spiritual infancy and lethargy (Hebrews 5:11; 6:12). The author thus warns them in the strongest of terms about the danger of falling away, a step they were on the verge of taking. Indeed, the author consistently refers to the potentiality of taking this next step rather than its actuality (Hebrews 2:1; 3:12-13; 4:11, 11, etc). Thus, he says in 6:9, “Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things – things that belong to salvation.”

Throughout the homily of Hebrews, the author alludes to the danger of his audience drifting away from or neglecting the gospel of salvation (Hebrews 2:1,3), of throwing away their confidence, and shrinking back from faith (Hebrews 10:35, 38-39). They were on the verge of unbelief and being hardened by the deceitfulness of sin (Hebrews 3:12-13,19), disobedience (3:18; 4:6, 11), and rejecting God (Hebrews 12:25). Verses 26-31 say, “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Verse 29 speaks of how the apostate has “profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” The interpretation of this text rests in large measure on the identification of the referent of the pronoun of this verse. If the pronoun refers to the individual who deliberately carries on sinning, then this would suggest that the text is speaking of a genuine believer, who had undergone sanctification by Christ’s blood, who has fallen into consistent rebellion against God. Alternatively, a minority of interpreters, in order to avoid the force of this text, have suggested instead that the pronoun of verse 29 may be referring to Christ who was sanctified, since Christ is said earlier in the homily to have “learned obedience through what he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8).[5] However, this seems to be an ad hoc interpretation. Randy Booth comments, “Some contend that the words ‘by which he was sanctified’ refer to Jesus (see John 17:19). Such an interpretation cannot be sufficiently supported. Moreover, even if they did refer to Jesus, it must be admitted that the word ‘sanctify’ is used in a different way than it is earlier in Heb. 10:14. Surely the sanctification experience of Jesus is far different from that which we experience.”[6]

Another interpretation, offered by Wayne Grudem, is that the sanctification being referred to here is outward and ceremonial, since it is found in a context where a comparison is being made to the Levitical sacrifices.[7] Thomas Schreiner points out, rightly in my view, two problems with this approach. One is that “a similar argument could be made regarding the cleansing of the conscience, for the author contrasts the cleansing of the conscience with that provided by the Levitical system. Thus, on Grudem’s own terms it is methodologically possible that the cleansing of the conscience is also external and not saving.”[8] Schreiner also points out that “the contrast with Levitical sanctification is intended to emphasize the superiority of Christ’s work. The contrast and comparison with the Levitical system does not indicate that the sanctification provided by Christ is merely external, for throughout Hebrews the old covenant outwardly symbolizes what is now an inward reality through Christ. Grudem, by relegating the sanctification in Hebrews 10:29 to ceremonial sanctification, actually contravenes one of the major themes of Hebrews, namely, what was anticipated in shadowy form in the Old Testament has now become a reality in and through the sacrifice of Christ.”[9]

The other three warning passages also appear to be addressed to believers. In Hebrews 2, the author cautions his readers against “drifting away from” (2:1) and “neglecting” (2:3) the “great salvation.” Given that a major theme of the book of Hebrews is the readers’ spiritual lethargy and disposition to return to the things of the old covenant (which were but shadows of the reality in Christ), the best way to interpret this text, in my judgment, is that it addresses genuine believers who are at risk of falling away. That this warning is addressed to believers is also suggested by the use of the inclusive pronoun ἡμᾶς (“we”) in Hebrews 2:1.

The warning passage in Hebrews 3:7-4:13 also appears to be directed towards believers, since 3:12 says “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.” The fact that the author addresses the audience of the warning as ἀδελφοί (“brothers”) suggests that his exhortation is directed towards fellow believers.

Finally, the warning in Hebrews 12:14-29 is best understood as being directed at believers. The author writes “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel,” (Hebrews 12:22-24). This strongly suggests that the addressees are genuine believers. In the verse that immediately follows, the author says, “See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven,” (Hebrews 12:25). The second person plural pronoun (“you”) in this text refers to the same audience as that in verse 22, indicating strongly that the warning is given to individuals who are true believers.

For the reasons given above, it, therefore, seems most plausible to me that the “falling away” spoken of in Hebrews 6:4-6 and the other warning passages refers to genuine apostasy where a true believer forsakes the gospel of his salvation. If that is indeed the case, then it would appear that salvation is indeed conditional upon perseverance in the faith. What is not as clear, however, is whether this implies that a true believer can forfeit his or her salvation by falling away. It is to this question that I now turn.

Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation?

If, as I have argued, the warning passages of Hebrews are addressed to believers, does this imply that a Christian can lose their salvation? If so, we would be required either to re-evaluate our methodological presumption of the unity of Scripture, or to re-evaluate the numerous texts in the rest of the New Testament that I have argued support eternal security. Some interpreters have gone down this route and have argued that loss of salvation is indeed a possibility for the believer. For example, Scot McKnight has offered an analysis of all five of the warning texts, in which he argues that believers are indeed in view and that a Christian can forfeit his or her salvation by falling away.[10] Howard Marshall likewise argues that a Christian can lose their salvation by falling away, since, he argues, the warning passages are robbed of their meaning if a believer cannot in fact stray from the faith and forfeit their salvation by so doing. [11] Nonetheless, he argues that falling away is the exception rather than the rule, as revealed by the texts which speak of the preserving grace of God. According to Marshall, the relationship between God’s threats and promises is paradoxical and cannot be understood.[12] Marshall also reinterprets texts outside of the book of Hebrews that appear to teach eternal security of the believer. For example, he suggests that the golden chain of redemption spoken of in Romans 8:29-30 can in fact be broken by the believer.[13]

Another approach that has been offered in an attempt to get around the implication that a believer can forfeit their salvation is argued by Charles Stanley[14], R.T Kendall[15], and Zane C. Hodges [16] [17]. These authors argue that the warning passages, though directed at believers, actually concern the loss of rewards, or the loss of a happy and fruitful Christian life. According to this perspective, everyone who ever confesses Jesus as Lord will be saved, no matter what fruit (or lack thereof) is borne in the life of the believer. Kendall, for example, suggests that the kingdom of God spoken of in warning texts such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:21 refers not to heaven but instead to God dwelling in the hearts of believers[18]. Likewise, when it comes to the warnings in Hebrews, Kendall argues that the texts are warning about the loss of rewards, not their eternal salvation. [19] However, this approach errs in the divorcing of salvation from good works and perseverance in the faith. Numerous texts throughout the New Testament indicate that good works are a necessary accompaniment of saving faith and provide the grounds of assurance of one’s salvation. Indeed, “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead,” (James 2:17).

My own opinion is that, though the warning passages are indeed addressed to believers, and though the warning texts refer to a genuine apostasy, a Christian cannot lose their salvation. We have already seen that the apostle Paul upheld both the doctrine of eternal security and the doctrine that salvation is conditional upon perseverance in the faith. If those ideas can indeed be held in harmony, then there is no reason to think that the book of Hebrews teaches that a Christian can forfeit their salvation.

I would argue that the interpretive key is found in Hebrews 3:14, discussed earlier in this paper, which says “For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.” This is consistent with what is said in the Pauline corpus concerning apostasy. For example, he writes of the gospel “by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you – unless you believed in vain,” (1 Corinthians 15:2). The soteriology of the book of Hebrews, therefore, does not appear to be different from that of Paul and Peter. All three uphold both eternal security and the requirement of perseverance for salvation. Both hold those two doctrines together by maintaining that the test of a true believer is that they will persevere in the faith. In numerous texts, Paul indicates that certain behaviours, including perseverance, necessarily accompany true salvation and warns believers to test themselves to ensure that they are indeed in the faith (e.g. 2 Corinthians 13:5-6).

The Purpose of the Warning Passages

This still, however, leaves unaddressed the question of why Paul and the author of Hebrews feel a need to include the warning passages. If true believers will not fail to persevere, what sense is there in warning them that they must persevere in the faith in order to inherit salvation? The answer I find most satisfying is what Thomas Schreiner has called “the means of salvation” view. [20] That is to say, observing and taking heed of the warning passages is the means by which we obtain salvation. This is not works-based salvation, since, in my view, perseverance is a necessary expression of true faith and anchored in the sustaining grace of God. While works are necessary for salvation, those works are not meritorious. Rather, works are a necessary accompaniment of saving faith. So powerful is God’s grace that it not only imparts to the believer salvation apart from any meritorious works on our part, but it also regenerates the believer. Indeed, “what is striking about the Scriptures is that the passages concerning the steadfastness of God’s faithfulness and the passages with admonitions are inseparable. We do not encounter a single passage that would allow anyone to take the immutability of the grace of God in Christ for granted.”[21]

A helpful illustration to convey the purpose of the warning passages is to be found in the shipwreck of Paul on route to Rome in Acts 27:13-44. Paul says to the sailors, “I urge you to take heart, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship,” (verse 22) since an angel had told Paul that “God has granted you all those who sail with you,” (verse 23). Nonetheless, “Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, ‘Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved,’” (verse 31). Here, Paul has been guaranteed by God that all of those with him on the ship will be saved. However, Paul also candidly warns the sailors that to be saved they must remain with the ship. In other words, their salvation was conditional upon their perseverance with the ship, but God fulfilled the condition by causing them to persevere. God uses means to accomplish His ends, and in this case, God used Paul’s warning to those with him on the ship that they needed to remain with the doomed vessel in order to be saved. I would argue that God uses means to bring about the perseverance of those who are being saved. One of these means is through the warning passages in Hebrews and elsewhere in Scripture.

Some may be concerned that God guaranteeing that true believers will persevere in the faith – and, indeed, God’s sovereign election of His saints – conflicts with human free will. However, the compatibilist view is that God works through our free choices. So exhaustive is God’s knowledge of His creatures, even before they are born, that He knows how they will behave given different contingent counterfactuals. Thus, using this divine middle knowledge, God can create a world in which His purposes are accomplished (including the salvation and perseverance of His elect) without compromising human free will.[22]

The idea that salvation is conditional upon perseverance in the faith is further supported by the Olivet discourse, where Jesus says, “See that no one leads you astray (Mark 13:5). Jesus goes on to speak of the terrible persecution that Jesus’ followers are to endure. He says that “you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Mark 13:13). However, notice how Jesus indicates that God also uses means by which the endurance to the end is brought about. He goes on to say that “in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days,” (Mark 13:19-20). In other words, God would providentially shorten the days of persecution for the sake of His elect, so that they would indeed persevere to the end.

Conclusion

In summary, I have argued that while the warning passages in Hebrews and elsewhere in the New Testament are directed towards believers and concern the real danger of apostasy, the New Testament teaches that this condition is fulfilled by God Himself, who causes true believers to persevere in the faith. If, then, someone fails to persevere in the faith, that provides evidence that they were never truly saved. I have argued that the warning passages serve as part of the means through which God ensures the perseverance of His saints. The Lord’s sheep hear the voice of the shepherd, which warns and admonishes them, lest they should stray from the path of salvation and perish.

Footnotes

[1] David Alan Black, “Who Wrote Hebrews? The Internal and External Evidence Reexamined,” Faith & Mission 18, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 3-26.

[2] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 32-62.

[3] Dale Moody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans-Lightning Source, 1981), 357.

[4] Buist M. Fanning, “A Classical Reformed View,” in Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, ed. H. W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2007), 207.

[5] James R. White, “The Newness of the New Covenant: Better Covenant, Better Mediator, Better Sacrifice, Better Ministry, Better Hope, Better Promises (Part II),” Eamon Younis, March 30 2020, http://eamonyounis.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-newness-of-new-covenant-better_30.html.

[6] Randy Booth, “Covenant Transition,” in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2003), 298.

[7] Wayne Grudem, “Perseverance of the Saints: A Case Study of Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Other Warning Passages in Hebrews,” in The Grace of God, The Bondage of the Will: Biblical and Practical Perspectives on Calvinism, Volume One, ed. Thomas R. Schreiner and Bruce A. Ware (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 177-178.

[8] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998), 49-50.

[9] Ibid., 50.

[10] Scot McKnight, “The Warning Passages of Hebrews: A Formal Analysis and Theological Conclusions,” Trinity Journal 13 (1992) 21-59.

[11] Howard Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1969), 196-216.

[12] Ibid., 210-211.

[13] Ibid., 103.

[14] Charles Stanley, Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure? (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990).

[15] R.T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983).

[16] Zane C. Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege: A Study on Faith and Works (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981).

[17] Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1989 and Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989).

[18] R.T. Kendall, Once Saved, Always Saved (Chicago: Moody Press, 1983), 125-130, 159-184.

[19] Ibid., 177-178.

[20] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Perseverance and Assurance: A Survey and a Proposal,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998), 32-62.

[21] Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer, Faith and Perseverance, trans. R. D. Knudsen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 116-117.

[22] Kenneth Keathley, Salvation and Sovereinty: A Molistinist Approach (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010).

STEPS AND RESOURCES FOR SOUND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

4. Is the NT True?, CrossExamined, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian Huffling

Many people don’t know how to study the Bible, or even where to begin. The Bible is a long collection of books that contains much about ancient history, difficult concepts, and is very intimidating for people who want to read it but don’t know where to start. This article will describe some of the principles of interpreting the Bible (hermeneutics) that are taught in basic Bible college and seminary classes (but are easy enough for anyone to understand). This is not a 12-step method to anything, it is simply a sound method to examine the biblical text. Well, it is a 3-step method: observation, interpretation, and application.

OBSERVATION

When we read a passage, we typically want to ask, “What does it mean?” But there is a more basic question we should ask first: “What does it say?” It is easy to read into the text something that is not there (this is called eisegesis), often because we simply put words there that aren’t but think they should be. For example, John 20:19 says: “On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’” It is often stated that Jesus walked through a wall or the door. However, the text doesn’t say that. It simply says the doors were locked and Jesus appeared to them. Maybe he walked through the door or wall, or maybe he just showed up. We have to observe the text carefully. There are various aspects of the text to observe.

One major area to observe is genre. For example, narrative is treated differently than poetry or didactic literature (such as the epistles). Narrative simply describes what happened, whereas didactic literature prescribes what should happen (in other words, it gives commands). Of course there can be narrative in epistolary literature (or vice versa), but the point is that one needs to be careful, for example, not to make an imperative out of a simple description. It is also arguably the case that one should not use parables to base his theology. This is debated, but the point is that we should be aware of the type of genre we are reading when doing interpretation.

Another aspect of the text to observe is the historical and cultural context. For example, Revelation 3:15-16 says, “I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” People often say that Jesus would rather you be completely dedicated to him or not dedicated at all. (Does the latter even make sense?) Actually, what we know from historical information is that the the area being referred to (Laodicea) had hot water pumped in from hot springs and cold water pumped in from cold springs. People went to the hot springs for healing (like being in a hot tub) and went to the cold springs for refreshment (something I would never do as I hate cold water), so the Laodiceans tried to get that water for themselves. However, by the time the water got to Laodicea, it was lukewarm and nasty and when people drank it it would make them vomit. Jesus is saying that he wanted the Laodiceans to be spiritually healing or refreshing. Rather, what the church there had to offer was spiritually nasty. Historical knowledge here clarifies the text for us.

It is also imperative to observe the textual and literary context, that is, what comes before and after the passage you are looking at. We get into trouble when we start looking at passages without understanding the context in which they are in. Sometimes we don’t have to go back to the beginning of the book, but we should at least start with he literary unit in which our passage is found. The chapters and verses don’t necessarily determine that, so pay attention to what the text is saying. Does the passage start with a conjunction such as “but” or “and?” Then it’s a good idea to see what preceded that conjunction.

In looking at the textual and literary context we can observe the structure of the passage. Are words, phrases or sentences in a certain order or pattern? For example, we should be on the look out for chiasms. Chiasms are structures that have an ABCBA order. Sometimes it could have an ABBA order, such as in Romans 10:9-10, which says: “because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” Notice the mouth/heart/heart/mouth structure. The middle part of the chiasm is meant to emphasize the author’s point. Look at the below chiasm from the flood story:

Such a long chiasm is hard to identify, but if we start to see patterns in the wording of the text and in a certain order, it can be found. While the story of the flood is typically thought to be about judgment, the focal point of the flood story is actually that God remembered Noah. The entire Book of Mark is actually a chiasm. The below image is taken from my Hermeneutics class notes by Dr. Tom Howe:

Another area to observe is terms. This particular area of observation is difficult not to blend with interpreting (asking about the meaning). However, we have to observe what terms are (and are not) used. As you probably know, the Bible was not written in English. Almost all of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with some areas being written in Aramaic (such as much of Daniel with the rest being Hebrew—something that itself needs to be observed), and the New Testament was written in Greek. Word studies are very popular, and many times all of Bible study is simply reduced to a word study, which it should not be. But it should be part of our study. It is important to know what underlying original word was used, if we can, when doing a Bible study. Some people are more trained at this than others, but it is a goal we should have.

When observing terms, we need to look for terms that are repeated. Such repetition of terms can show the structure of the book or passage. Such as the word “immediately” in Mark. The word “immediately” is used 5 times in Matthew, and fewer than that in Luke and John. But Mark uses it over 40 times. Why is that? It is obviously an important term for him. Let me put that into a graphic for you:

We should also observe terms that are difficult to understand, such as “predestination.” Figure of speech is also important to observe. Sometimes it is debatable as to whether a text is a figure of speech or not. There are some rules that can help discover if something should be taken as a figure of speech. For example, if something for whatever reason cannot be taken literally, then it should be taken as a figure of speech—such as when Jesus told his disciples at the Last Supper that the bread and wine was his body and blood. If something would be an immoral command from God, such as when Jesus said to eat and drink his body, that should be taken as a figure of speech. Of course, these examples are debatable between Catholics and Protestants, but the general rule holds true that when something cannot be taken literally, it needs to be taken as a figure of speech.

We also need to take note of words that are unfamiliar to us, such as “talent.” When we read, for example, in the parable of the unforgiving servant, that the servant owed ten thousand talents, we need to know what a talent is. (This gets blurry with our second step, interpretation.) Some translations, such as the NIV, translate “ten thousand talents” here as “ten thousand bags of gold.” One talent was about twenty years worth of wages. More on this in the next section, but the point is we need to be aware of these words—in other words, observe them.

INTERPRETATION

This is the step we generally start with but shouldn’t: what does the text mean? Back to the “talent” story. We observed that the word used in the parable of the unforgiving servant is “talent,” but the NIV says “bags of gold.” A talent was about 20 years worth of wages. If the average wage is around $45k, then that’s $900k. I don’t know how much a bag of gold is worth, but we’d have to multiply $900k by 10k for it to be accurate in talents. My iPhone calculator got an error when I did that. Ten thousand talents was more money than the known world had then, and ten thousand was the highest number in Greek. The point was actually that the amount of money the servant owed was unimaginable. Ten thousand bags of gold just doesn’t seem to be a good translation. This is an example of both the observation and the meaning of a word.

Another example is the word “power” in Romans 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” The word for “power” in Greek is dynamis, from which we get the word “dynamite.” Some today, even popular commentators, say that the gospel, like dynamite, blows up sin. The problem with this view is that dynamite didn’t exist in the first century, so that can’t be what Paul meant. It simply means “power” or “ability.” This is a good example of what not to do in interpretation: import a later meaning into an earlier word. Remember, a text can’t mean what it never meant. This particular issue is called the fallacy of reverse etymology (etymology is the study of how words change over time) or anachronism.

Don’t know Greek? There are tools to help. Let me illustrate with a couple that I used before I studied Greek. I used to listen to a popular teacher and in one of his sermons he quoted Acts 2:24 to argue that Jesus went to hell. The text says this: “God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it” (the KJV from which he was using says “pains”). According to this teacher, since Jesus was in pain, then he must have been suffering, which wouldn’t have happened in heaven, so he must have been in hell. I was looking at that passage one day in my newly purchased Hebrew and Greek study Bible that used Strong’s Dictionary number system. The word “pain” had a number by it, so I looked it up. It said the word was “odin.” I also had just gotten the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (this is not an endorsement of TDNT as it is said to be pretty liberal, but it can be helpful in some ways), and looked up the word there. Basically, TDNT said that the word referred to birth pain, and that Peter was making an analogy here between a woman not being able to hold her baby in, but at the right time she gives birth, and death not being able to hold Jesus, but at the right time was forced to let go of him. It does not mean Jesus was in pain. Lessons: look words up. Get some tools.

But, as mentioned, word studies are not the only aspect of Bible study. When doing interpretation, we have to not only examine the meaning of particular words, but how words relate to other words. The former is merely grammar and the latter is syntax. This requires a knowledge of grammar as well as parts of speech and how words relate to each other. This is why simple word studies, while obviously useful, is not the only part of the game. Words aren’t in isolation, but relate to other words. Let me give you an example of how it is important to see how words relate to each other.

Several years ago in a Ph.D. class on philosophy of history, my professor, Mike Licona, said that we should not take the saints being raised in Matthew 27 literally because if we did, it would result in a problem in the text (this issue has since become a hot issue for him and the issue of inerrancy). Here’s the text: “And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many” (Matthew 27:51-53, ESV). Do you see the problem? I have read this passage for years and never noticed it. The context of the passage is Christ’s death. When was the curtain torn, and when did the earth shake? At his death—Friday. When did the tombs open and when were the saints raised? Friday. When does it say they came out of their tombs? After his resurrection—Sunday! That’s a natural reading of this translation. I haven’t seen any other English translations say it differently. The text seems to say that they were raised and the tombs were opened at the same time as the other events. But it seems to say that they didn’t come “out of their tombs until after his resurrection.”

I didn’t like this and was distracted by it. So, I stopped listening to the lecture (sorry Mike), and went to the Greek. Long story short, here was my solution: the word for “and” is kai in Greek and has several meanings, such as “even.” When it means “even” it tends to be emphatic/explanatory. In this case it could mean, “the saints were raised even coming out of their graves.” This seems to emphasize the physical nature of the event and that it wasn’t merely spiritual. Then, we could re-punctuate the sentence to read, “the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, even coming out of their tombs. After his resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.” I actually asked Mike if this was an acceptable answer as he knows Greek much better than me, and he said yes, as long as the word for “after” (meta) can start a new sentence. It can, an actually does a lot in narrative. Such a solution maintains proper Greek and English grammar and syntax. But it requires seeing how words relate to each other. It also requires observation and interpretation. (Some may object to such an answer as it appears to make the saints “resurrected” or first fruits before Jesus, but such is not necessary. The text does not imply they were raised immortal like Jesus. Remember, Jesus was not the first person raised from the dead. Elijah raised someone as did Jesus—Lazarus.)

I use this example to show a couple of things. One, don’t be married to any single English translation. Look at other translations (although I haven’t found an English translation that doesn’t have this particular problem here) and look, to whatever capacity you can, at the original languages. Two, the punctuation is not inspired (neither are the chapters and verses). In other words, read the text freshly and see if there are other ways to understand it and if the meaning changes.

One last note on interpretation and meaning. There can only be one meaning (although there can be many applications of that meaning: see below). While it is common for teachers to go around the room and ask their students, “What does this passage mean to you,” it is a bad question. It can’t mean to one person something that it doesn’t mean for all. It can have a different significance, but the actual meaning is fixed. (For a discussion on the issue argument the meaning is subjective or unattainable due to our biases, see my article on standard hermeneutics books as well as my article on historical objectivity.) While there are debates about what a given passage means, there can be only one right answer. It is up to studious interpreters to discover that meaning through the hermeneutical process. More could be said about interpretation, but let’s move on.

APPLICATION

Application is basically the “so what” part of the process. The question to ask here, after we have asked what does it say and what does it mean, is “how does this passage apply?” Unfortunately, sometimes people want to skip to this step first. Of course we have to know what the text says and means before we can ask how it applies to us. There are certain principles to keep in mind when trying to apply the text. Perhaps it is best up front to state that the text does not always have an application for us. Sometimes the text is informative for us and tells us about what happened, but it doesn’t always have an application. When the text says something like, “this king did this, and then this,” there really is no application, just information. In such instances, it is important not to try to wring out an application when there really isn’t one. Having said this, it is important to point out that even if there is no direct application, as Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16, all Scripture is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

It’s easy to apply commands: just do or don’t do something. Although, sometimes it’s hard to tell whether a command is meant to be for a certain culture and time or whether it’s mean to be universal. For example, is the issue of head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 meant to be universal? What about men not having long hair in verse 14? Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:12-14, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” Is Paul saying women shouldn’t teach or exercise authority over a man always, or just in that culture and time? Whatever that text means, the reasoning behind it seems to be universal. Paul gives two reasons for what he said: (1) the order of creation, and (2) who was deceived. If the reasons are universal, then the prohibition would seem to be so as well.

Things aren’t as straightforward with narrative. We have to be careful to not make a description into a prescription. Narrative simply is a narration of what happened. Of course, it can contain other genres, but when we are looking at pure narrative and not a command to us, we have to be careful how we apply the text, if it can be applied. If it is simply a description of what happened, we can’t necessarily make it a prescription of what should happen. For example, the fact that Gideon put out a fleece to discern God’s will is not a command for us to. The fact that Elijah and other people in the OT were called supernaturally by God does not mean we can say that’s how God normally operates or “calls” people today. Here are some other pitfalls to avoid with application:

Analogizing: analogizing is what we just referred to with the call of Elijah. Just because God called Elijah does not mean that he calls us. This “call” is often analogized between Israel’s prophets and people today, but such an application is illicit. We simply can’t say that because God did something in ancient Israel that he does so today.

Allegorizing: Allegorizing is when we take a literal event and make the application allegorical. For example, we can talk about the person who “loosed his donkey for Jesus” when he entered Jerusalem. I once heard someone say he heard a pastor talk about “loosing your donkey for Jesus.” I guess that’s supposed to mean you are making what you have available for Jesus, but the text is talking about an event that actually happened. It is not a command.

Spiritualizing: Spiritualizing is similar to allegorizing. It takes literal events and gives a spiritual significance. A popular example of this is to present the story of Jesus calming the storm for the disciples and say “Jesus stills the storms of life.” There are a few problems with this. One is that this was a literal storm and was not meant to say that Jesus actually stills the storms of life. It isn’t talking about spiritual storms or tough times: it’s talking about a storm! Secondly, Jesus doesn’t still the storms of life if that means that he stops the storm like he did in the story. To say that he stills the storms of life is not only to state something that is false but to endanger someone’s faith who expects him to still his storms.

So what do we do to apply the text? One thing is to do what the text says to do if it is issuing a command. If it’s narrative, it’s to see what universal principle can be applied. In the story of David and Goliath, it is a spiritualization to say that we should go and slay the Goliaths in our lives. The biblical passage is talking about a literal person named Goliath. It is not giving a command, but describing something that actually happened. But we can glean universal principles. In this story that principle could be that God is faithful to the promises he makes and to his covenant. Here are some other principles from which to see how to apply the text:

Is there an example for me to follow?
Is there a sin to avoid?
Is there a promise to claim?
Is there a prayer to repeat?
Is there a command to obey?
Is there a condition to meet?
Is there a verse to memorize?
Is there an error [theological] to mark?
Is there a challenge to face? (Howard Hendricks, Living by the Book, chapter 44)

The New International Application Commentary is an excellent commentary series to use to bridge the gap between the biblical times and ours to see if and how the text can be applied.

One last word about application: while the meaning is one, the application can be many since there are many situations in which to apply the text.

TOOLS FOR STUDY

If one is going to study the Bible, it is best to understand the tools that are available. Resources that this 3-step method is based on include Methodical Bible Study and Living by the Book (Living by the Book has a workbook).The most important tool is the Bible itself. There are hundreds of English translations of the Bible but there are generally 3 categories of translation philosophies: essentially literal (A.K.A. formal equivalence), dynamic equivalence (A.K.A. functional equivalence), and paraphrase. It is very important to use an essentially literal Bible for Bible study (see Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation for a discussion on this), and I would argue for reading it too, but a good dynamic equivalent translation can be ok for reading. Paraphrases have even been recommended by good interpreters, but mainly to see the general sense of the passage. The front matter in your Bible should explain what translational philosophy it holds to. Essentially literal Bibles include the King James Version, The New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, the Christian Standard Version, and the like. Dynamic equivalent translations include the New International Version, the Good News Bible, and the New English Translation. (The NET is worthwhile for its 60,000+ notes, and is available free at Bible.org.) Paraphrases include The Message, The Living Bible, and as I like to point out to my students, the Cotton Patch Gospel, that tells the story of Jesus from the vantage point of southerners in the U. S. (he is born in Gainesville, GA and escapes to Mexico).

Then there are commentaries. Commentaries are useful in many ways, but ideally should be consulted after your own study so you aren’t biased in a certain direction. There are two basic types of commentaries: critical (technical) and non-critical (non-technical). A commentary is critical if it discusses textual issues such as variations between different manuscripts of the original languages, or discusses the original languages in general. Some commentaries go into a great deal of detail and others don’t. Sometimes you just need a brief overview of an issue. For that I recommend The Bible Knowledge Commentary, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary and the Tyndale New Testament Commentary (as a set here). The NIV Application Commentary is another non-technical commentary. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, and The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (as a set here) is also very good. It is non-technical in the text but has technical/critical information in the notes. The IVP Bible Background Commentary (separate for OT and NT) is good for giving . . . the background, as are the The Lexham Geographical Commentary on the Gospels, The Lexham Geographical Commentary on Acts through Revelation, and The New Testament in Antiquity. There are actually commentaries on commentaries. These are basically long annotated biographies but with more information on the pluses and minuses of each set. See for example the Old Testament Commentary Survey,the New Testament Commentary Survey, and Commentary and Reference Survey. For a free and very useful resource, see Daniel Akin’s “Building a Theological Library.” It is not necessary to buy a complete set. As the commentary surveys and and Akin’s site show, some commentaries in a set are better than others, thus, it might be more beneficial if cost is an issue to buy certain individual commentaries. It is also important to pick up a good Bible dictionary and encyclopedia. There are a number of those in each category.

I can’t have a section on study tools and not mention Logos. There are many electronic software programs for Bible study. I have used Logos since 2004 and don’t want to try to do Bible study without it. I have required Logos in a couple of my classes as well, and the students love it too. Not only does it offer original language tools, it has incredibly complex search capabilities for the Bible, as well as the other books in your Logos library. And it is just that: a library. They have tens of thousands of books and tools. Other programs are good and there are debates about which is best, but I have used and love Logos. Others programs are BibleWorks, Olive Tree, or Accordance (only for Mac). Good free software is Blue Letter Bible and e-Sword.

CONCLUSION

What has been said hardly scratches the surface of biblical interpretation. It is certainly incomplete, but only mean to give some pointers and hopefully motivation for doing Bible study. This article is not meant to make Bible study seem hard, but to show that it takes work and offer some hopefully helpful tips. If you want to understand this system better, I encourage you to get Methodical Bible Study and/or Living by the Book. Thanks for reading, and please subscribe!

Why Doesn’t God Need a Creator

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Christians believe that God is an infinite being who has always existed. But what “evidence” can the theist put forth in support of this claim? This is a common challenge raised by the skeptic.

When a person asks for “evidence,” the usual response is to look for things like witness statements, or documents or fingerprints left at a scene. Since no one has “evidence” relating to things outside our universe, or to a being who preceded the Big Bang, it’s a safe bet, they think, that the Christian apologist can’t come up with any “evidence.” Or is it?

Teasing out the unspoken premise in the question highlights what is at play: the challenger assumes that it is only through physical or testimonial “evidence” that we can know things. But this is simply not true. While evidence and inferences from evidence are valid ways of determining what is true, they are not the exclusive ways. For example, when I know that no circle is also a square, where is the evidence for that? Or that A = C, when told that A = B and B = C? Or that rape is always wrong. These types of knowledge – based on logic and reason or on a basic moral sense – are part of the normal functioning of every human mind. Like a computer running software, our minds come equipped with certain basic programs, such as the ability to acquire and use language. Similarly, we are born with an appreciation of game-playing and fairness. Watch a child develop and you will see these subprograms at work. You may teach them how to play the game and what’s considered fair or foul, but they already intuitively understand the importance of the game and the rules.

The mind has an additional “pre-loaded” capability that helps us better understand where we came from and who created us: the ability to conceptualize, to make sense of patterns by grouping things into categories. For example, we don’t need an exhaustive list of possible ”chairs” or ”tables” to know whether a particular item can serve in that capacity. To know if something new qualifies as ”food,” we needn’t refer to a list but can instead ask questions, such as whether the item is edible and able to provide nourishment. An exotic fruit will pass that test but an ashtray will not. When we reflect on these conceptions, we can derive actual knowledge, even in the absence of traditional “evidence.” By realizing what a square is, we “know” that a circle can never be one. By knowing that people have a right to the integrity of their bodies, we know that rape – which violates that right – is always wrong. By employing logic, we know that A = C when A and C are both equal to B.

What does this have to do with God’s origins? Just this: it is by conceptualizing what is meant by God that we can determine – that we can know – certain important things about him. When we think of God, what exactly are we thinking about? We may of course disagree on specifics, but to qualify as ”God,” we must be referring to that ultimate omnipotent being that possesses and embodies infinite perfection. Well, the skeptic protests, why does that require existence? I can imagine a unicorn but that doesn’t mean I could ever find one.

This objection helps focus the inquiry, because it requires us to think more deeply. When we think of a unicorn, we are thinking of a white horse-like animal with a horn protruding from its forehead. Such a being may once have existed or may exist sometime in the future or may never exist at all. There is nothing about the conception of a “unicorn” that requires it to actually exist; the only requirement is that if such an animal did exist, it would have the noted attributes.

But when we get back to the conception of God, what is it that we have in mind? How do we best put words to the concept of the ultimate being, a being so great that it is simply not possible to conceive of anything greater? God embodies infinite perfections. Such a being, to qualify as ”God” within our minds, must necessarily exist. If you are contemplating two beings with similar attributes and one possesses the attribute of necessary existence and the other does not, it is readily apparent that the former is the greater being. Unless we’re conceiving within our minds this image of God, we have not yet actually begun to think about God but are instead thinking of something lesser.

Anselm of Canterbury is credited with first developing this argument, the ontological argument, ten centuries ago. When you follow where reason leads in conceptualizing what God entails, you realize that he must be an infinite being who necessarily exists. He was not created. He never came into being, and will never cease existing. All that there is, or was, or ever will be is contingent him upon him for existence, while he is complete in and of himself, contingent upon nothing. This is the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the creation of something from nothing; it is where the “evidence” leads.

That God is the source of this universe, and all that is in it, is a product of recognizing that all created things had a preceding cause, sufficient to bring them into existence. There are no known exceptions and no reason to suspect that there are any exceptions. Moving to the very beginning of the space/time continuum we occupy, there must be a source adequate to the task of creating it. Two possibilities exist: the creator of the universe was himself created, and therefore had a beginning; or he was infinite, having no beginning. If you choose the former, you haven’t gone far enough in your reasoning because the only way for a being to qualify as “God” is to possess infinite perfection. You need to keep moving back in time to frame in your mind that original being, the one who was not himself created.

The skeptic will usually persist in his challenge: why doesn’t your god need a cause? But again, to ask the question betrays the mistake in reasoning of the questioner. The error is in the premise: all things do not need a creator, only created things, or more specifically this universe and all that it encompasses. Something outside of the universe, something that is the source of all things, does not need to be created. In fact, reason leads us in the opposite direction. Since things don’t create themselves, there must be, at the very beginning, a being who always existed, who was never created and never in need of anything.

Seen in this light, the question becomes nonsensical, translating into: who created the uncreated being, or who caused the being which needed no cause? It is no different than asking what time it is on the moon. The time of day is a function of where on earth a person is; it is nonsensical when applied off planet.

Of course, none of this proves that God is the triune God of the Bible, who by the way does provide witness testimony of his eternal nature. But the skeptic will never begin to consider the truth claims of Christianity if he remains stuck doubting the existence of that God.

4 Ways Atheism Undermines the Scientific Enterprise

Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Have you ever wondered if atheism is compatible with science? Not many have. In today’s culture it is commonly assumed that they are best of buddies. Many people even believe that science has done away with God and provides powerful evidence for the truth of atheism. A couple years ago I posted an article that describes six ways that atheism defeats science as a knowledge discipline, thus anyone who accepts that science can give us knowledge about reality must reject atheism as true. Today I want to discuss the more practical side of science and provide four more ways that science and atheism are incompatible.

Before I start though, I want to make a couple things clear: First, I am referring to atheism as a claim about reality not merely a belief: the affirmative claim “God does not exist in reality.” Second, since I am not merely talking about a belief but a reality (one’s beliefs can be false), I affirm that one can certainly believe that God does not exist in reality and still be quite successful as a scientist and do great work. My claim here is very narrow, and it involves the dually claimed realities that God does not exist and that science is not as chaotic as it is about to be described.

Fatalistic Events

If atheism is true, then no agency exists. This means that our bodies are merely “moist robots” that act and react to stimuli with no free will, choice or intention behind any of the actions and reactions. The implication of that is that no scientist intentionally performs “good” science or “bad” science or really has a choice to perform science at all.

There are no deserved accolades due for “good” science because what was done was merely a determined sequence of actions based upon environmental factors that the scientist had no choice in performing. There also are no reprimands due for “bad” science because what was done was merely a determined sequence of actions based upon environmental factors that the scientist also had no choice in performing.

If atheism is true, fatalism is true, and there is no intentionality. People have no free will, no choice, and are fated to do what they do, and they merely watch everything happening to them and nothing happening by them. “Science” is just a series of events that happen without a choice by anyone behind the events. Logically on the atheistic, fatalistic view of reality scientists deserve no credit or responsibility for anything that they have “accomplished” or “perpetrated”. The blind, unintentional forces of “fate” determined or forced them to do everything. In such a world no one has the ability to do otherwise, thus the idea that they deserve credit or reprimand because they made the “right” choice has no ground in an atheistic world.

Subjective Morality

Speaking of “accomplished” and “perpetrated,” when a society discards any anchor for morality (a society based on atheism), they surrender all justification for calling anything evil or wrong. Scientists may “choose” to report their findings incorrectly due to need to survive in the scientific community or to make the data appear to support a preconceived conclusion. On the atheistic view, there is not anything morally wrong with misrepresenting data because there is no objective “right” or “wrong.”

Likewise, if a scientist “discovers” something completely new that helps people in the course of the research or down the road, their work cannot be seen as morally “good” because “good” does not even exist. The same goes for the scientist who “discovers” (or the engineer who “invents”) something completely new that harms people in the course of the research or down the road. Their work cannot be considered “evil” or “wrong” since neither exist.

Whether scientists incorrectly or correctly report data or their work leads to benefit or harm, they should neither be punished nor rewarded or even condemned or commended for their respective actions because without “good” or “evil”, “right” or “wrong” having a moral value, their work and actions cannot have any moral value either.

If someone decides to punish or reward or not to punish or reward (respectively or irrespectively), they have not acted rightly or wrongly either, since “right” and “wrong” do not exist. Punishing “good” science is just as “right” as rewarding “evil” science, and rewarding “good” science is just as “wrong” as punishing “evil” science.

Interestingly enough because morality does not exist on atheism, justice, which is a concept necessarily dependent upon the existence of morality, cannot be promoted and will never be realized in the sciences (or in any other area of life, but that is another blog post for another time).

If there is no morality, then it is up to the individuals to “choose” (see the section above for the reason for the use of the quotes) what is “right” or “wrong”. One person may “choose” to punish “good” science while another “chooses” to reward it; neither is truly “right” or “wrong”; and neither are themselves worthy of reward or punishment for their recognition and related actions.

No Design, No Engineering

As mentioned above, if atheism is true, then intentionality does not exist. One of the implications of such a view is that the very concept of “design” also does not exist. “Design” requires intentionality. This means that no scientific study is designed, no scientific experiment is designed, no sequence or series of anything in science is designed. If intentionality does not exist, then nothing is designed. But that is not where it ends. If intentionality does not exist, the very concept of design is impossible.

If the very concept of design is impossible, then we have an implication that reaches beyond the discipline of science into the discipline of engineering. The study of nature often results in the reverse-engineering of its features, which then leads to new innovations. But what of such a concept if what is being “studied” is not really designed? We cannot really claim to be “reverse-engineering” anything since “engineering” implies design necessarily, which does not exist. Nothing is being “reversed.” And since intentionality does not exist, it has the same implications for the discipline of engineering, so “engineering” is not actually taking place either.

If we insist that some DNA or other biological features are truly undesigned “junk” then why study it (science), much less, try to imitate it (engineering)? Notice that I asked “why” not “how.” If atheism is true, the answer to “how” is “because scientists and engineers are fated to.” That answer explains “how” (given fatalism) the actions and reactions that we are fated to call “science” and “engineering” take place if atheism is true. But it does not explain “why” scientists and engineers “should” study and invent or even “how” study and invention are intentionally conducted given the lack of intentionality in a fatalistic reality.

No Progress

Finally, if atheism is true, there is no objective goal or final purpose. Without an objective goal, the direction of science is not objectively established. The necessary implication of this is that multiple, divergent or even contradictory goals can be pursued (fatalistically, of course). Without an objective goal, there is no ultimate purpose in science and no way to accurately judge progress. In order to even claim that science as a knowledge discipline is making progress, we must have some objective goal by which to judge whether scientific discovery is moving towards the goal (progressing) or moving away from the goal (regressing).

Sure, a person can put forth a goal that they like (again, fatalistically), but so can multiple persons. Two persons can put forth two goals that are polar opposite of each other, but there is no concept to distinguish between which one is “progressive” or “regressive”, “good” or “evil.” Let’s also not forget that this is not limited to only one pair of polar opposite goals; numerous polar opposite pairs of goals can be in play simultaneously.

Further complicating the issue is that each goal may have multiple pathways to its accomplishment that are at odds with other pathways. There are no objective ends and there are no objective means. Alignment in purpose and in policy is impossible even in theory because there is no objective purposer if atheism is true.

This results in the necessity of “might makes right” in the sciences. If someone wants their purpose to be pursued, they must exercise their influence and power over those who either disagree or have purposes that redirect resources away from their purpose. Such an exercise is conducted fatalistically (as seen above), and objectively morality does not exist (as seen above). So it follows logically that judgment of such an exercise by a person, no matter how evil or good we are fated to feel that it is, cannot be judged nor resisted on any moral grounds. All reactions are fated, neither right nor wrong, neither good nor evil, neither progressive nor regressive…just things that happen to us, with no more significance than the event of a dust particle just now landing on my keyboard.

Conclusion

If atheism is true, the scientific enterprise is nothing more than a baseless, fatalistic, nihilistic chaos. But no one knows this because they are presupposing (in contradiction to atheism) EVERY thing that a grounded, intentional, and meaningful system requires.

The atheist scientist is borrowing from the theistic worldview at every level in order for their “chosen” profession to have any meaning whatsoever. Atheists often resist this idea and insist that they can intentionally do good, purposeful science without God. Sure, this can be done without believing in God, but it is because God exists that anyone can do so. If it were true that God does not exist, then it necessarily follows that science is chaotic, but the fact that science is not as chaotic as described above provides multiple lines of evidence that atheism is necessarily false (that, necessarily, God exists).

The very chosen profession of the atheistic scientist provides numerous foundational reasons for them to abandon their atheism. Ironically for the atheistic scientist, if the scientific enterprise is as reliable as they insist, then no results from it can be used against the knowledge of God. If God does not exist, then it necessarily follows that the scientific enterprise is an unreliable source of truth. The study of nature (science) at every level, from its foundations to its operations to its results, provides numerous evidences for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity.

New Age and Christian Terms: Same Words Different Meanings. What’s the Difference?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Melissa Dougherty

Energy. Universe. I AM. Manifesting. Meditation. Visualize. Source.

These are just a few words that were familiar to me in the New Age/Thought. These have different meanings in the Christian world and for the average person. Sandra Tanner, a well-known former Mormon, once said, “if you [as a Christian] find yourself agreeing with a Mormon, then someone hasn’t defined their terms.” This isn’t just true with Mormonism. Even though people use the same words, we must understand their definition of what they mean to understand when it departs from Orthodox Christianity. We need to make a distinction between beliefs.

I will attempt to list what I consider to be the top 5 New Age terms that need to be clarified. I will define what these words mean in the New Age vs. what they mean in Christianity. This is not an exhaustive definition but is a general understanding of each word. Because New Age is such a “salad bar” belief system, many people who consider themselves “spiritual” can define each of these slightly differently.

1. Energy- In the New Age, this can mean an invisible power or force that can change and affect things. I used to think of this as a sort of “magic.” We’re all made up of energy and can manipulate it with our thoughts, words, and feelings. It’s the all-encompassing power in the Universe that allows us to manipulate our surroundings and reality. Sometimes, people in their pursuit of mixed spirituality will mistake this for being the “Holy Spirit,” that God is really Universal energy.

In Christianity, when someone says “good vibes” or “bad energy,” it’s not the same thing. They’re trying to convey a bad or good feeling of sorts. Sometimes people innocently use this word to size up what we’re feeling in a room or with people. Scientifically speaking, of course, it’s the general energy our body gives us to move. In Biblical Christianity, we understand there’s a spiritual realm. Thoughts and feelings play a part in how God works, but they’re not the basis of truth. As Christians, we have the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but a significant difference is that we recognize God’s sovereignty over our own.

2. Universe/Source- In the New Age, Universe and Source (with a capital “s” and “u”) are buzz words for a pantheistic type of “God”: all is God, and God is all. All are One, and all are united. It can be seen as an “it,” an impersonal force, perhaps a form of conscious ‘love’ fueling the cosmos, and it grants us our desires and guides us. This is where we receive our answers from.

In Christianity, these definitions are used quite literally. The universe is a creation of God. God does not equal the Universe. He holds the universe in His hands. God is personal. He has feelings and is our Creator. He’s not our genie that grants wishes. He’s not submissive to us.

3. I AM- In the New Age, this is a huge affirmation word. I AM has creative power in your life. You say it, believe it, speak it into the universe, and so it shall be. Like Christianity, I AM is another name for God in the New Age. However, the implications are startlingly different. This is a word used to tap into our personal divinity, being able to tell the Universe what we need from it. I AM well. I AM rich. I AM complete etc., are all examples of what I used to say to make it so. In other words, Jesus was claiming His divinity when He said He was the I AM. We all can claim this divinity just like He did because He is the “Way-shower.” The late Wayne Dyer, a popular New Thought teacher, was especially vocal about this teaching. He says:

“The words I AM are your sacred identification as God- your highest self. Take care how you use this term because saying anything after I AM that’s incongruent with God is really taking the Lord’s name in vain!… I AM God is not blasphemy. It’s your identity!”

Pretty cringe, right?

I AM in Christianity is so different! This is Jesus’ exclusive claim to be God, the one and only. In the Old Testament, God claimed to be the I AM. This was the Great I AM, the testimony of the identity of Yahweh, the Almighty God. In my opinion, no other word best describes the attributes of God than “I AM.”

He is the fullness of perfection and is all we need.

4. Manifesting/Visualize- These words are used a lot together in the new age. Whatever you think and feel, you manifest in your reality. The Law of Attraction, a New Thought teaching that says “like attracts like,” is probably one of the biggest examples of this practice. If you visualize it (whatever “it” is, good or bad) and send the energy out into the Universe, then it will mirror that and manifest in your world. This is why positive thinking and actions are paramount to the type of outcome you want to manifest in your life. Growing up, I was told that visualizing was a form of “prayer” to the universe.

In Christianity, in general, there’s nothing wrong with thinking ahead in life and having a mental image of the desired outcome in our lives. A lot of people do this with no metaphysical intentions. But the most significant difference is that we’re not our own sovereigns. We are under the will of the Father. His will be done, which is tough for some people to accept. This means voluntarily giving up control. In Christianity, whatever we have isn’t there because we manifested, visualized, or attracted it to us. God is the one who’s ultimately in control if we’ve given Him our lives.

5. Meditation- New Age meditation is a meditative state where we are all about our energies, chakras, one with the universe, visualizing, etc. It’s a mental state focused on finding inner peace and enlightenment of sorts. Many people will meditate in hopes of having a vision, meeting their spirit guide, or invoking inner peace or a spiritual awakening.

In Christianity, this word means something very different. Believe it or not, meditation itself isn’t unbiblical at all. It’s what we’re meditating on that makes the difference. Many scriptures point to meditating on God’s word and Him alone. An example of this is perhaps memorizing scripture and focusing on God’s will around a particular avenue we should go in life. Our focus is on God and His will.

Does anyone notice a theme of sorts here? In the New Age/New Thought, it’s all about us and our will.

In Christianity, it’s all about God and His will.

5 STEPS TO LIVING A JOY FILLED LIFE

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Jason Jimenez

In a recent conversation with a Christian friend, he shared how several unexpected killjoys had sprung up in his life and dragged him down to a dark place. Since then, my friend has struggled to find joy in his life.

What about you? Are you finding it hard to be joyful in life?

The reality is, we could all use more joy in our lives. Which leads me to share with you the first of five steps to living a more joyful life.

The first step is to seek joy from God.

Joy is a gift from God. It doesn’t come from people or objects in the world. You might get temporary relief or happiness. But the joy the Bible speaks of is so much more. As we read in the Bible, joy has to do with a deep state of gladness, cheer, and contentment. In the Lexham Bible Dictionary, “joy” is “closely related to gladness and happiness, although joy is more a state of being than an emotion; a result of choice.”

David declared that it’s in the presence of God that there is “fullness of joy” (Ps. 16:11). In Nehemiah 8:10, we read that we find strength in “the joy of the Lord.” In Galatians 5:22, Paul lists “joy” as a byproduct of the Holy Spirit.

If you want more joy in life—look no further. Look to God.

The second step is to acknowledge and cherish the eternal blessings you have as a child of God:

You are forgiven and have peace in Christ– “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near” (Ephesians 2:13-17).
You are sealed with the promised Holy Spirit – “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:13-14).
You have a living hope in Christ – “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:3-5).

The third step is bringing balance into your life.

You’ve heard the saying, don’t sweat the small stuff. It’s next to impossible to appreciate the joy you have as a Christian if you live a hurried-up life filled with stress. In the book of Philippians, Paul writes, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (4:6-7).

We can’t overlook that Paul wrote the words “don’t be anxious” while in prison. Despite the various trials and the ups and downs, Paul still found joy amid some of his darkest hours. That, my friend, is joy!

It would be great that every time you feel worried or anxious, you simply pray for it to go away, and just like that, it’s gone! But, as you very well know, that’s not reality. We may not like it, but it’s in hardships and feeling depressed that God’s joy is made so much more real to us.

So, offer up prayers of thanksgiving to help eliminate any worry or stress that might be preventing you from living a life of joy.

The fourth step involves setting boundaries with certain people who suck the joy out of you.

Setting boundaries is a hard thing to implement for anyone. Starting with the fact that no one likes confrontation. And secondly, most of the “joy suckers” in our lives are people we have no choice but to be around. They can be a family member—a co-worker.

So, the obvious thing is not to overreact and pull away from everybody. What you want to do is assess your relationships and determine who is the most self-centered, critical, argumentative, and who tends to push your buttons. In a nutshell, who leaves you feeling drained and discouraged most of the time?

Once you’ve realized who the “joy suckers” are, the next challenge is to draw the necessary boundaries to protect you from allowing this person to steal your joy. As mentioned in step one, joy is a choice. You may not always have a choice who you are around. But you do have a choice how you interact with them and they with you. So, make sure you bathe your relationships in prayer and seek wise counsel before setting certain boundaries.

The fifth step is to enjoy life today!

It’s easy to take for granted what we have in our lives. I’ll admit that when I get impatient with people or with work-related stuff, I can miss out on enjoying life. Just the other night, I told my wife how I needed not to lose sight of enjoying the simple moments in life. Whether it be throwing the football with one of my kids or sipping a cup of coffee with a friend. I need to be more sensitive and aware of counting my blessings every day.

How about you? What are some blessings you’ve received from God that you need to appreciate more?

As you seek to implement these five steps to achieving a more joyful life, seek to add the prayer from Paul below to enrich your motivation.

“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.” Romans 15:13

What Words Tell Us About Culture

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Scott Reynolds

What gives words meaning? Is it the author, the words themselves, the reader, or something else altogether? At different points in history all the above had a place of authority giving words their meaning. However, as the world changes and the power behind words change it causes great change in culture. Exploring the power of words is an extension of exploring the power of culture and who has the power to shape culture.

Jacques Derrida and the Postmodern Revolution

Jacques Derrida stands at the center of the radical postmodern literary revolution. He is burdened by the idea that anyone can use a text to position authority over someone else. The idea of equality found at the table of interpretation includes more than accepting other readers who might use it for their own advantage but also includes the reader’s equality with the author and the text itself. Derrida’s criticism of literary theory includes a deconstruction of understanding. His goal was to move beyond the written text and the spoken word, and into the fabric of metaphysics, methodology, and the morals of meaning.

Three Ages of Transition in Literary Interpretation

Kevin Vanhoozer uses the work of Derrida to highlight the three ages of transition in literary interpretation. The division of his work follows the critical analysis of the three ages: the age of the author, the age of the text, and the age of the reader. Each section explores the historicity of the age, the mentality of the reader regarding truth, as well as the issues that contributed to advancing a transition away from the prima facie interpretation of objective truth or the author’s meaning found in the text. As Vanhoozer looks at Derrida’s work he is asking the reader to decide whether the meaning of a text is objectively fixed by the author or by the text itself, or whether it maintains the freedom to vary from reader to reader.

Pre-Modern, Modern, and Postmodern Periods

If the three interpretational methodology transitions are broken down historically, they seem to follow the transitions of Western society through the pre-modern, modern, and postmodern periods. The pre-modern period is defined by absolute authority. The reader had limited access to the written word and any word written carried the full weight and authority of the author. The modern period ushered in the age of enlightenment and with it an explosion in education. The quest for knowledge placed an emphasis on the reader’s exegetical skills to interpret the text. The authority no longer rested with the intentions of the author but in the educated hermeneutical methodology of the reader. The 20th century ushered in postmodern era, after two world wars, Western culture began questioning all authority. The institutions of government, marriage, the church, and education all became vulnerable to the removal of objective authority. Regarding the literary interpretation of the postmodern reader Vanhoozer states a word “interprets with a no reality principle (the way it is), only a pleasure principle (the way I want it to be).” The foundational question in the theology of literary interpretation is authority. The battle over authority is critical in how a person approaches interpretation and how they determine whose interpretation is correct.

Reformation and the Battle of Interpretation

Historically, the battle of the Reformation was in part a battle of interpretation. Luther and others questioned Papal Infallibility or the Soul Inerrancy of the Pope. The reformers rejected that the Pope had interpretational inerrancy. The interpretational transition of the Reformation saw the authority move from a single point of Soul Inerrancy to the acceptance of a new idea called Soul Competency. However, as the reformers allowed the average reader access to the Bible, they would still hold the reader to the belief of determinacy in their interpretations. Everyone was welcomed to study and work to interpret the Scriptures as long as they realized that being Soul Competent meant that you could find God’s meanings in the Scriptures. It did not mean that you were Soul Inerrant, meaning that you could wrongly interpret the Scriptures.

Calvin’s goal in interpretation, was clear; “It is the first business of an interpreter to let his author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say.” In contrast is Derrida’s “death of an author” which is a direct consequence of Nietzsche’s announcement of the death of God. The death of God means the death of absolute authority. The current state of cultural affairs has drawn an increasing number of biblical scholars to adopt and advocate strategies for translating the Bible, influenced by the work of Derrida. Derrida and his deconstructionist have correctly analyzed the postmodern culture and have declared victory by bracketing out orthodox Christian belief. They also believe that once a text is freed from the author, it can become a canvas on which a reader can exercise their own creativity. The death of the author was critical in moving from premodern to modern, and from modern to postmodern culture.

Spiritual Implications for Biblical Authority

What are the spiritual implications for removing the biblical author’s authority? “The answer is brief but massive: biblical authority is undone. The un-doers effectively strip the Bible of any stable meaning so that it cannot state a fact, issue a command, or make a promise.” The death of the author gave rise to the power of the words themselves. The transition is tame compared to the problems with postmodern philosophies; however, some believed that commentaries were being developed and could be used by anyone to push an agenda on the text. Richard Coggins feared that commentaries would become weapons of propaganda. Today, the church is the living consequences of these transitions and postmodern relativism has left the current culture in a legitimate crisis in biblical understanding.

DETERMINISM

Determinism means that a text has a definite meaning, one that can be qualified and defined. The next step down from determinacy is textuality, “where the autonomous text offers no more resources for limiting the play of meaning than does the strangulated voice of the anonymous author.” Even those modern scholars who helped refine interpretation theory as a science of the text could not stop the downward spiral of deconstruction. Eventually, the second pillar fell, and society experienced the death of the text and with it the possibility of literary knowledge.

POSTMODERN THINKING

Postmodern thinkers have deemed it unnecessary to investigate truths about the world, especially when it comes to epistemology. They believed “the light of reason is no longer needed for the growth of knowledge.” The ideal of objective knowledge is no longer a truth to pursue but a myth to debunk. These thinkers reject objective knowledge found in a text due to bias found in a theoretical or interpretive framework: “knowledge in the postmodern world is always contextual, always perspectival, always relative to some point of view or other.”

LOGOCENTRISM

Some postmodern thinkers like Paul Ricoeur are not as radical as Derrida in their attack on logocentrism, the catchall term used to describe Western thinkers who are preoccupied with meaning, rationality, and truth. Derrida believes that having a stable point of commonality outside of language, like reason, revelation, or even Platonic ideals, feeds the traditional view of authoritative truth. He uses the name “grammatology” for a study of writing that is no longer governed by logocentrism.

POINTS OF FAILURE

Derrida’s views create a tension, which he classified as a battle between what a text wants to say and what it is systematically constrained to say. “As a deconstructionist he is able to identify points of failure in a system, points at which it is able to feign coherence only by excluding and forgetting that which it cannot assimilate, that which is ‘other’ to it.” Derrida repeatedly finds the best way to escape problems with his belief system is to simply not recognize those issues that will not assimilate into his views. Those authoritative views like objective and absolute truth found in the Scriptures are simply deemed to live outside his interpretative community. When interpretation moves from a methodology used to understanding a text to the primary purpose of the text then all authority is stripped away and only the current relevant meaning of a closed interpretative community remains.

Use of Metaphors

The use of metaphors in ancient writings has leant to the ever-evolving creation of meaning. “It is one thing to interpret metaphors, however, and quite another to interpret metaphorically.” Derrida held that there is nothing outside the text and therefore the whole world is a metaphor. Language is a collection of signs used to promote different views about the world. He believed that the “metaphoricity is the logic of contamination and the contamination of logic.” The metaphorical indeterminacy allows a reader to choose metaphors about God and his relation to the world that best fit and promote their worldview about God.

Derrida’s deconstructionist views on reason, authoritative revelation, and objective truth all stem from his radical views about authority in general. Disillusioned with authority, he states that “reason is what serves our ethico-political interest. Behind rationality lies values (ethics) and power (politics). Deconstruction is a kind of sophistic acid that strips away the layers of rhetoric that disguise values and truths.” The goal was nothing short of incoherent relativism in a world freed from oppressive authorities.

The third age of criticism he explores the transition from textuality to contextuality. “The reader is not a canvas to be molded but an active participate in developing meaning to a text based on what the reader brings to it. Those looking to deconstruct meaning, study the effects of a reader’s social, historical, and theological bents on their personal interpretation of a text. The idea of a reader-response methodology to interpretation opened the door to criticism from many conservatives. The radical reader-response critics continue to reject the traditional role of the reader and insist that the text conform to the reading instead of the reading conforming to the text.

The battle for interpretative freedom and true meaning has deep cross-cultural implications knowing that both moderns and post-moderns are claiming the high ground in the battle for literary theory. Defending the position of the author, Vanhoozer refers to the post-modern reader’s use of a text as a ventriloquist’s dummy serving as the conduit to voice their own opinion. He recognizes that the current age of criticism is defined by egotistical entitlement that simply refuses to look to the truth found in the past but instead is committed to the unintelligible ideas of their own voice.

Stanley Fish has declared, “The authorizing agency of interpretational authority is not the author, the text, or even the reader, but the interpretative community.” The worldview of the crowd dictates the range of what is or is not an acceptable interpretation of a text. A conservative might say, I believe it means X, (X being the traditional, authoritative interpretation), but if the culture is bent towards a different liberal view, then having the view of X is outside the range of an acceptable interpretation of the text. The implications of Fish’s conclusion is that truth is demoted from its prior status as timeless and absolute to what the mob perceives is good and acceptable in this moment. Truth, metaphysically, morally, and meaning simply becomes a label we assign to our beliefs. As along as a reader’s beliefs fit inside the acceptable worldview of the interpretative community, then any interpretation that seem right to the interpretative community at the moment or given to advance their beliefs is deemed as good and true.

Derrida’s Deconstructionism

Derrida’s deconstructionism’s underlying purpose is promoting and supporting an inconsistent ideology with the goal of removing institutional authority. As the chart shows the interpretative plurality speaks about approaching a text with different interpretative methods. The idea is that it might take multiple interpretative approaches to get a thick description of meaning out of a text. In contrast, hermeneutical pluralism maintains conflicting interpretations are viewed as equally valid. The deconstructionist represents a small, but growing, number of people who truly believe that a determinate meaning cannot be known from a text. When asked whether a determinate meaning can be determined, the majority of people think yes, even if they will not say so publicly. The power of their interpretive community and the perceived oppression by traditional institutions rallies the average reader to forsake logic and follow an inconsistent ideology. Derrida’s criticism of literary theory includes a deconstruction of understanding.

Vanhoozer has observed how the work of orality in Rabbinical Sages to create independent and authoritative discourse outside the historical norms shows great similarities to Jacques Derrida’s deconstructionism: “Derrida attends only to the signifiers, not the signified.” In other words, like the rabbis, Derrida is focused on someone’s speaking and has no concern for what they are saying. The social implications of Derrida’s deconstructionism can be seen in the plurality of Israel’s monotheistic culture. Thus, “The Alexandrian Therapeutae, the Yakhad of Qumran, the Pharisees, and the primitive Jesus-communities, all appear to have been conversionist associations formed to pursue a collective transformative discipline under the guidance of persuasive teachers.” Vanhoozer promotes critical realism as a middle position between letterism (epistemological absolutism) and deconstructionism (epistemological relativism).

Pre-Deconstructionism: The Next Step?

Could Pre-Deconstructionism be the next step after post-modernism? Premodern was bound by authoritative religions, modernism is bound by scholastic academia, postmodern is bound by the individual, and pre-deconstructionism is bound by the interpretative community. Interpretative Communities could be the next phase of cultural evolution, returning words to premodern authoritative positions, this time not held by the church but multiplied by mobs of interpretative communities.

Is It Possible To Break Through Apathy?

Apologetics for Parents, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

The biggest obstacle to most apologetics efforts is apathy. While there are indeed some ardent atheists, usually the ones who take the time to write a response to posts like these, by and large the response of the average skeptic is to figuratively throw up their hands. They usually don’t take the time to research and consider a specific truth claim that is being made, or to counter some argument with evidence to show that an argument is false or mistaken. Nor do they try to convince you that their worldview is in fact true. Instead, most skeptics I’ve dealt with have developed a comfort level regarding the “unknowability” of ultimate things. They often argue that the fact that people disagree about such things – that a range of people have differing views on the subject- is itself evidence that no one can ever know whether there is a God, what He is about, or most importantly, what He may want of us. And so, they often don’t bother to try to investigate these things for themselves.

But if the Christian worldview is correct, such apathy is itself hazardous to one’s spiritual health. Recently, I tried to make this case in a conversation with a skeptic. It went something like this:

“Let’s say this was 70 years ago, and when I saw you, you were chain smoking cigarettes with your children always nearby. I know where medical science is headed, so I tell you that you are hurting yourself, and your kids. You respond that no one can really know such things; after all, you can point to doctors who advertise cigarettes and smoke them themselves, and you feel fine when you smoke. I point to other doctors who think that it’s really bad for you. You respond, ‘See, it’s a tie, so stop bothering me. Each person believes what they were raised to believe, or what they want to believe.”

“Do you see,” I asked, “that the conflict between the doctors should not lead you to conclude that neither is right, or that the answer is not knowable? As a friend, should I keep trying to bring you back to the truth about cigarettes, or should I let you persist in believing something that is, in the end, hurting you and your loved ones?”

My friend’s response was not unexpected. It went like this:

“Have you ever noticed how so many things are bad or wrong only at certain points in a cycle? Eat eggs, don’t eat eggs; give your kids soy, soy is bad; babies should sleep on their backs, no their stomachs, no their sides, no their backs etc., etc. When my daughter was born I would put her on her back to sleep and when I left the room my mother would put her on her side and when my mother left the room my grandmother would put her on her stomach. Over time the answer comes full circle. Why go around and around with it? What I am saying is not just throw up your hands and quit; what I am saying is that I do what feels right to me and that is the best I can do. Sometimes I listen to friends (and doctors) and sometimes I don’t. I think the ‘answer’ to many of these things is unknowable.”

Fair enough. Some things are unknowable, and for some things, it doesn’t really matter. But that of course is the point of being thoughtful: deciding which is which. So, I conceded that for some things, the right answer might be “it doesn’t matter.” For example, a child might be equally safe on her side or her back. Eggs or soy might be good for you or bad, depending on your health and how much you eat.

But for other things – like smoking – it will never “come back around.” Science will never say that smoking is good. It might say that it won’t necessarily kill you, but not that it will “balance your humours” like they said 200 years ago.”

“This analogy to smoking,” I continued, “is just one of many possible examples of the way consequences are built into the nature of reality. Take another example: if I embark upon a life of crime or drug addiction, I will eventually reap what I sow and the place I find myself might not be pleasant. We have the ability to foresee possible consequences through the use of our minds and imaginations. Is it really that much of a stretch to consider that this life will end at some point and to give some thought to what may await? Take my drugs example one step further – since you’re young and healthy, you might be able to abuse drugs for quite some time without being harmed. You might presently be indifferent to whether using drugs is a good or bad idea. But how smart a move would it be for you to say that you really don’t care what effect it will have on you in twenty years? Looking down the road to the consequence of our choices is something we all really need to do.”

“So,” I concluded, “the trick is, which is this? Are questions of eternal life like laying a child on her side, or are they more like smoking with my kids in the room or abusing drugs? I hope you see the answer matters. If you were smoking ten hours a day with your kids present, you would be harming them. Getting the right answer on that would matter. Getting the right answer on your relationship with God also matters, both to you and to the people you influence.”

I don’t think I persuaded her. As with smoking, not everyone bothers to read the warning label.

So You Left the New Age… Now What? Five Helpful Tips

Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Melissa Dougherty

We each go through unique difficulties whenever we leave the New Age.

Whenever I left the New Age, it was incredibly lonely. I felt like nobody understood what I had just gone through. At the time, it felt like no Christian around me understood what the New Age really was, and to be honest, I was somewhat embarrassed that I had fallen into such beliefs, even after going to church for so many years. I didn’t even understand what I believed was New Age. I had to sift through the theological mud. I also did a Pendulum swing where I just wanted to point out what was wrong with everybody’s beliefs, and I went through a brief phase where basically everything was “New Age,” and there was a demon under every rock. I had trouble trusting again and wasn’t sure how to get my footing. But I did. Scripture says that he gives wisdom to those who ask, and he rewards those who earnestly seek him. I want to share five helpful tips for those who have just left the New Age.

# 1.) Read Your Bible.

This sounds simple. But I think of the character of Christian in The Pilgrim’s Progress. He poured over the pages, and this fed his thirsty soul. Just the simple act of reading through the Gospels has been life-changing for so many people coming out of the New Age. This alone has undone so much theological damage done by the false beliefs of the New Age. Many people sometimes have trouble understanding the Bible at first. The simplest thing I’m going to tell you about that? Read it anyway. This is not just any book, but a spiritual book guided by the Holy Spirit, by God Himself to give to humanity. It’s applicable to all history. It’s perfectly normal not to understand everything in the Bible completely, but this is by far the greatest resource you have available to you when it comes to knowing who God is and basic Christian teachings.

# 2.) Pray and Spend Time with God.

This is arguably just as important as reading your Bible. Again, this sounds simple, but scripture is very clear that whenever we seek out God and draw close to Him, he draws close to us. He reveals Himself through his Word and prayer. These two things together are very powerful when it comes to giving you direction. When you pray, be very intentional about this. Purposely make time to spend throughout your day talking to God. Go in the closet if you need to and close the door and just spend time with, pray to, and worship Him. Also, keep in mind that just because you don’t feel God doesn’t mean he doesn’t hear you or isn’t there listening to you. The New Age is an extremely feelings-oriented belief system, and in many ways, our truth came surrounded by what we felt and where our emotions led. It can be a paradigm shift going into knowing God, but maybe not feeling Him all the time. What is also important for people to realize is that God is personal and is the source of wisdom and truth. For many people coming out of the New Age, knowing there is one place to go for truth and wisdom is very important because the New Age has many sources of truth. There’s a reason why Jesus says that He’s the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

# 3.) Find a Theologically Sound Church.

This is arguably the biggest challenge for some people. It’s a tall order for someone who doesn’t know what that looks like or might have had a negative church experience. Here are some tips. First, and this might be the most obvious, but is this church in line with what the Bible teaches? Is this church teaching sound doctrine? Is this church teaching what Christianity has taught and believed for the last 2000 years? You need to make sure that they’re solid on who Jesus is, the attributes of God, which is just a fancy way of understanding God’s complete character as revealed in Scripture, a Biblical understanding of the Trinity, heaven, and hell, the reliability of the Bible, and salvation, which again are all found very clearly within scripture. There’s a reason why number 1 is so crucial. The more that you read your Bible, the more you’ll be able to spot when things are off from the pulpit of any church. If the Pastor is just spouting off out-of-context life application principles from scripture like a walking talking self-help book with fancy gelled hair, a nice- and probably very expensive- polo shirt, and skinny jeans? Then that’s a big fat red flag, my friend. This is huge, but look out for if they downplay scripture reading and study and put experience and feelings first. Is inviting people to church and making it look attractive the focal point, or is discipleship and teaching sound theology? Do they resemble a lot of the New Age beliefs you just rejected? Are the Bible and Jesus alone sufficient? Is Scripture just used as an accessory for them, or is it the actual foundation for their faith? Is it the green beans your Mom has to put on the plate, or is it the real meat and potatoes? And yes— you do need to be around other believers. In my opinion, saying you’re a “lone sheep” and don’t think you need to meet regularly with other believers isn’t wise or spiritually mature. It can create unhealthy echo chambers.

# 4.) Beware of the ‘Pendulum Problem.’

Be careful about not becoming so extreme in your beliefs when coming out of the New Age. I have observed a constant correlation that there’s almost a sense of paranoia of deception, and it’s hard to shake. Sometimes “paranoia” can be confused with “discernment.” People don’t want to be deceived again, so they come out arms swinging-guns blazing-hersey-hunters at everything and everyone that resembles the New Age. I think it’s essential for us to remember the grace that we were given when we were new believers and remember what it was like to be in the New Age. Some people have shared with me that they experience a sort of grief when they come out of the New Age because it feels like they’ve been duped. When your life changes drastically, we sometimes need to mourn what we’ve gone through, even if it was bad for us. I know I did. But it wasn’t because I missed what I believed in. It was mostly because I felt like I was so so confident in what I had believed, and it was a total shock to my pride. So in this mind frame, people can go through many changes. It would be wise to be aware of this and not over-condemn everything. Picking and choosing our battles can be a good start. It takes study of scripture, discipleship, maturity, prayer, time, and wisdom to do this.

# 5.) Remove Unhealthy Temptations.

Riding on the coattails of number four, I’m not saying to go to the extreme and get rid of everything in your house that reminds you of the New Age or your beliefs, but it is very wise to get rid of books or items that you might have owned that might be a source of temptation for you or could cause you or others to stumble. This would include throwing out all New Age clothing, books, idols, tools of the occult, and things like that. Also, sometimes this can mean distancing yourself from people that might be toxic. It can be hard to be around people heavily involved in the very lifestyle you’re trying to leave. I had a friend describe this along the lines of someone who perhaps has an addiction or experienced abuse that to overcome it, they had to rid their lives of all influence of that temptation or environment. In a way, the same is true for those fresh out of the New Age. There’s a reason why we see this same thing in Scripture. Throughout the Old Testament, God told the Israelites to pull down and destroy idols. There were many reasons for this, but He compared it to Spiritual adultery. For some people who leave the New age, it’s sometimes surprising that they want to keep a foot in the New Age and a foot in Christianity. We even see this in some churches! For those who might want to hold on to some New Age beliefs and mix it with their Christian beliefs, let me ask you this: if you were married to someone, would you find it okay if they were to wear a wedding ring from another person along with the wedding ring from you? This would be an offense to you, just like it would be an offense to God. We can’t mix New Age with Christianity or claim that the New Age can somehow be redeemed for the church. You can’t serve two masters.

When Hollywood gets God and virtue right

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Frank Turek

Imagine if there were a fun way to raise your kid’s interest in God while imparting some of the most important virtues every Christian parent wants their children to learn. There is. You can use an unlikely source that will help you get your point across without you sounding all “preachy.”

Pollster George Barna found that young people get their theology more from movies than the pulpit. So why not use the power of Hollywood to give them good theology where you can? Stories inspire and instruct more vividly than commands, which is one reason why Jesus not only gave commands but also told stories.

Yes, I know. Unlike Jesus, Hollywood’s stories often glorify much that is immoral. But Hollywood’s most successful movies often tell inspiring stories of sacrifice that borrow from the greatest story ever told. These movies also provide biblical life lessons, even movies not made by believers.

Here are a few kid-friendly examples.

If you want your kids to have the courage to stand for the truth even when the world is against them, watch any movie with Captain America. Steve Rogers (a.ka. Captain America) is the poster child for what we look for in a hero. He’s the leader of the Avengers despite clearly being outclassed in power by most of the other heroes on the team. His most important trait is that he is morally incorruptible — a trait he had even when he was just a scrawny kid who was too small to enlist in the Army in World War II. Once his mind is made up about what the right thing to do is, nothing will stop him. The guy is even willing to fight the evil supervillain Thanos and his entire army in Avengers: Endgame BY HIMSELF.

If you have kids who tend to impulsively follow their hearts, look at the moral progression of Iron Man. He starts off as a selfish playboy but is transformed into a hero who eventually sacrifices himself to save the world. Tony’s transformation requires him to stop impulsively following his heart, as the culture promotes, and to start guarding his heart as the Bible commands (Pr. 4:23). This is beautifully illustrated by the device implanted in Tony’s chest that is literally guarding his heart from encroaching shrapnel. When Tony guards his heart from distractions and his own selfish desires, he can focus on what’s really important — the responsibilities he has to others.

If your child isn’t the most popular or strongest kid in school, watch The Lord of the Rings. The heroes of Tolkien’s Fantasy Masterpiece are those who are weakest physically but the strongest morally. Sam and Frodo are three-foot hobbits who are dwarfed by everyone else. But weakness turns out to be a strength for them because it gives them the humility to ask for help. Tolkien is highlighting the biblical truth that when you are weak you are strong because when you are weak you rely on God for help (2 Cor. 12:10). Of course, Tolkien intended for The Lord of the Rings series to present a Christian worldview — including the fact that there is a God who often works behind the scenes — so watching the series will be rich theologically and morally in many other ways as well.

If you want your kids to see the beauty of grace, watch Wonder Woman. In her first feature-length movie, Wonder Woman spares an evil war criminal who is kneeling in repentance even though she is being egged on to kill this war criminal by her opponent Ares who wants to kill everyone because he thinks human beings do too much evil. Ares screams at Wonder Woman that people “don’t deserve your protection!”

But Wonder Woman responds, “It’s not about deserve; it’s about what you believe. And I believe in love.”

That reflects what God believes and did for us. God loves so much that He sent His only son to take our punishment so when we believe in Jesus we will not get what we deserve — we will not get paid back for the evil we’ve done — we will get grace, love, and eternal life.

It’s not just the movie franchises of Captain America, Iron Man, The Lord of the Rings, and Wonder Womanthat can help parents reinforce Christian truths and virtues. So do other franchises such as Star Wars, Superman,Batman,andothersas we show in our new book Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God.

Your kids are probably watching those movies anyway (if not, they are hearing about them from their friends or online). So why not use the aspects of these films that convey truth and virtue to reinforce those things in your kids? Knowing these movies will also give them launch points to direct their friends toward Christ. Knowing them can help you do the same with your friends. And the best thing about all of this is that having movie night is often a lot more fun and effective than getting all “preachy.”

A Brief Survey of the New Testament as a Whole

An Analysis of Clear Texts in the Book of Hebrews

Are the Warning Passages Addressing Genuine Believers?

Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation?

The Purpose of the Warning Passages

Conclusion

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

OBSERVATION

INTERPRETATION

APPLICATION

TOOLS FOR STUDY

CONCLUSION

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Fatalistic Events

Subjective Morality

No Design, No Engineering

No Progress

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The first step is to seek joy from God.

The second step is to acknowledge and cherish the eternal blessings you have as a child of God:

The third step is bringing balance into your life.

The fourth step involves setting boundaries with certain people who suck the joy out of you.

The fifth step is to enjoy life today!

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jacques Derrida and the Postmodern Revolution

Three Ages of Transition in Literary Interpretation

Pre-Modern, Modern, and Postmodern Periods

Reformation and the Battle of Interpretation

Spiritual Implications for Biblical Authority

DETERMINISM

POSTMODERN THINKING

LOGOCENTRISM

POINTS OF FAILURE

Use of Metaphors

Derrida’s Deconstructionism

Pre-Deconstructionism: The Next Step?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

# 1.) Read Your Bible.

# 2.) Pray and Spend Time with God.

# 3.) Find a Theologically Sound Church.

# 4.) Beware of the ‘Pendulum Problem.’

# 5.) Remove Unhealthy Temptations.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic: